JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 14th December, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 9S/2 of 2008, titled as Sh. Arjun versus Sh. Harnam Singh and another, whereby compensation to the tune of 2,82,920/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The insurer and the driver-cum-owner/insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. It appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in determining issues No. 5 & 6 and exonerating the insurer for the reasons to follow. 5. The claimant-injured filed claim petition for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused by owner-cum-driver, namely Shri Harnam Singh, while driving Mahindra Pick Up, bearing registration No. CH03P2188, on 18th June, 2007, near Sanwara, in which he sustained injuries. 6. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 29th October, 2008: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. CH03P2188 by the respondent No. 1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the mishap occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. If so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR2 6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the mishap occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. If so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR2 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, its effect? OPR2 7. Whether the vehicle was being driven without any route permit. If so, its effect? OPR2 8. Whether this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitioner? OPR2 9. Relief.” 8. Parties have led evidence. 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of 2,82,920/-, as per the details given in para 26 of the impugned award. It is apt to reproduce para 26 of the impugned award herein: “26. In view of the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the observations made by our Hon'ble High Court in Master Chetan, Appellant Versus H.R.T.C. and others, Respondents, 2005 (3) Shiml.L.C. 138, to my thinking, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation in/under the following manner/heads: i) Medical expenses including Rs. 20,000 the expenses for future treatment, if any ii) Transportation expenses: Rs. 2,000/- iii) Attendant expenses: Rs. 5,000/- iv) Special diet and nutrition: Rs. 5,000/- v) Pain and suffering: Rs. 20,000/- vi) Loss of amenities of life: Rs. 25,000/- vii) Actual loss of income and estimated future loss of income : Rs. 2,05,920/- Total: Rs. 2,82,920/-” 10. The facts of the case do disclose that the compensation awarded under the heads 'medical expenses', 'transportation expenses', 'special diet and nutrition' and 'loss of income' is to be upheld but the compensation awarded under the heads 'attendant expenses', 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities of life' is to be enhanced for the following reasons: 11. It is beaten law of land that while assessing compensation in injury cases, guess work is to be made. 12. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. 12. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771. 13. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 14. Viewed thus, exercising guess work, 20,000/- is awarded under the head 'attendant expenses', 50,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', 50,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities of life'. 15. Accordingly, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation under the various heads as follows: (i) Medical expenses : 20,000/- (ii) Transportation expenses: 2,000/- (iii) Special diet and nutrition: 5,000/- (iv) Attendant expenses: 20,000/- (v) Pain and Sufferings: 50,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities of life: 50,000/- (vii) Loss of income/future income: 2,05,920/- Total: 3,52,920/- 16. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 17. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 ; and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 18. 18. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 19. The question is – who is to be saddled with liability? 20. The Tribunal, while determining issues No. 5 and 6, has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, which is factually and legally incorrect for the following reasons: 21. Admittedly, the driver was driving Mahindra Pick Up at the relevant point of time, the gross vehicle weight of which is not exceeding 7500 kilograms, as is evident from the insurance policy, Ext. RX1, thus, is a light motor vehicle, as has been held by this Court in various judgments. 22. The mandate of Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in a case titled as Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. versus Smt. Santosh & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791, and after examining the various provisions of the MV Act held that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on the driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle, which he intends to drive. It is apt to reproduce paras 19 and 23 of the judgment herein: “19. Section 2(2) of the Act defines articulated vehicle which means a motor vehicle to which a semitrailer is attached; Section 2(34) defines public place; Section 2(44) defines 'tractor' as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load; Section 2(46) defines `trailer' which means any vehicle, other than a semitrailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Section 3 of the Act provides for necessity for driving license; Section 5 provides for responsibility of owners of the vehicle for contravention of Sections 3 and 4; Section 6 provides for restrictions on the holding of driving license; Section 56 provides for compulsion for having certificate of fitness for transport vehicles; Section 59 empowers the State to fix the age limit of the vehicles; Section 66 provides for necessity for permits to ply any vehicle for any commercial purpose; Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport; Section 112 provides for limits of speed; Sections 133 and 134 imposes a duty on the owners and the drivers of the vehicles in case of accident and injury to a person; Section 146 provides that no person shall use any vehicle at a public place unless the vehicle is insured. In addition thereto, the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act provides for imposition of passenger tax and road tax etc. 20. …....................... 21. …...................... 22. …..................... 23. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in subsection (2) of the said Section. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxicab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motorcab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semitrailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'.” 23. The Apex Court in another case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 906, has also discussed the purpose of amendments, which were made in the year 1994 and the definitions of 'light motor vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle' and the necessity of having a driving licence. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview thereof. A 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 1999 (6) SCC 620 ]. 9. ….................. 10. …............... 11. …............... 12. ….............. 13. ….............. 14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for 'Transport vehicle' which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein. 15. ….......................... 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 24. The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case titled as Kulwant Singh & Ors. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in JT 2014 (12) SC 110, held that PSV endorsement is not required. 25. Having glance of the above discussions, I hold that the endorsement was not required. 26. The Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Court 1531, has laid down principles, how can insurer avoid its liability. 25. Having glance of the above discussions, I hold that the endorsement was not required. 26. The Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Court 1531, has laid down principles, how can insurer avoid its liability. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only the available defences raised in the said but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.” 27. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, herein: “10. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, herein: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 28. Having said so, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 29. Having said so, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 29. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 5 and 6 are set aside and it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the same was not being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the owner-insured has not committed any willful breach. Thus, the insurer is saddled with liability. 30. At this stage, it is stated that the awarded amount stands already deposited. The enhanced awarded amount be deposited before the Registry within six weeks. On deposition of the same, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 31. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 32. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.